From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk  Thu Jul 24 18:35:14 2003
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) id h6OGZEoY021038
	for sc22wg5-domo; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:35:14 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk)
X-Authentication-Warning: ptah.dkuug.dk: majordom set sender to owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk using -f
Received: from holyrood.ed.ac.uk (holyrood.ed.ac.uk [129.215.16.14])
	by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h6OGZ9Ec021031
	for <sc22wg5@dkuug.dk>; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:35:11 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from dtm@holyrood.ed.ac.uk)
Received: from holyrood.ed.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by holyrood.ed.ac.uk (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h6OGZ73o024762;
	Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:35:07 +0100 (BST)
Received: (from dtm@localhost)
	by holyrood.ed.ac.uk (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h6OGZ6cR024752;
	Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:35:06 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <200307241635.h6OGZ6cR024752@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 24 Jul 2003  17:35:06 BST
From: D Muxworthy <dtm@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
Subject: Miscellaneous minor edits to 03-007
To: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk
Reply-to: d.muxworthy@bcs.org.uk
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk
Precedence: bulk

I apologize for the lateness of this contribution.  I had originally
intended simply to put these suggested trivial edits into subgroup
discussion at the WG5 meeting, but then realized that it might be of
benefit to at least some of those attending, and maybe to some not
attending, to have them written down. 

1.  May not
One of the BSI style rules is not to allow "may not" as it could mean
"must (or can) not" on the one hand and "it might not happen that" on
the other.  The following edits would remove the phrase.

34:13    "may not" -> "must not"
41:0+5   "may not" -> "might not"
59:8+3   "may not" -> "must not"
176:4+2  "may not" -> "can not"
176:37   "may or may not" -> "might or might not"
194:12+3 "may not" -> "must not"
245:5+3  "may not" -> "must not"
249:7+3  "may not" -> "might not"
312:8+9  "may or may not" -> "might or might not"
467:35   "may or may not" -> "might or might not"
467:32   "may or may not" -> "might or might not"
469:24   "may or may not" -> "might or might not"
469:28   "may or may not" -> "might or might not"

While on the subject, paper N1524 (referring to 03-104r2) suggests
changing line 489:27 from "..  which may be unsupported..." to "... 
which might be unsupported...".  I would suggest "...  which might not
be supported..."

2.  Normative references
Section 1.9 states that ISO/IEC 646:1991 is to be referenced herein as
"the ASCII standard" and ISO/IEC 9899:1999 as "the C standard".  There
is no such shorthand for ISO/IEC 10646-1:2000 which is referenced in
full some half dozen times.  Is this deliberate or an oversight?

In any case the first short form is not used consistently.  "ASCII
standard" is used only once, at 42:12, whereas the full form is used at
40:12 and 322:1-2.  I would suggest replacing the latter two by the
short form.  The term "C standard" is used multiple times. 

3.  Other edits
8:29     "9989" -> "9899"
{we ought to get the reference to the C standard right}

182:13   "do not do" -> "do not perform"
{we usually "perform" I/O rather than "do" it}

David